Comments on: Once More, With Meaning! http://www.roughtheory.org/content/once-more-with-meaning/ theory in the rough Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:56:21 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: N Pepperell http://www.roughtheory.org/content/once-more-with-meaning/comment-page-1/#comment-844 N Pepperell Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:35:10 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/once-more-with-meaning/#comment-844 Unlike Sinthome, I find sometimes that the responses of others make me feel more ephemeral... ;-P Not, however, in the case of your reply... :-) I just happened to catch your comment between meetings, so this will be a very brief response. I agree with the point you are trying to make about the elevation of style over content in some of the worst appropriations of "poststructuralist" theory - but this wasn't actually the point I was trying to make in this particular post. (I was, though, worried that my meaning could be taken in precisely this way, so I appreciate your comment as an opportunity to address the distinction...) What I'm trying to highlight is actually a more fundamental issue - not specific to poststructuralist theory, but to any approach that tries to assert a dynamic identity of subjecitivity and objectivity, but that falls into asserting this position in the form of a <em>stance</em>. When I speak about the <em>form</em> of the argument in this post, I'm actually not talking about the written style (among other things, it would seem unfair to pick on someone's style in a blog post - where the whole point is to expose ideas in draft) - I'm actually talking about something more like <em>analytical</em> style - about the underlying logic of the argument. By the same token, I don't think the problem can be resolved purely by the adoption of any particular writing style (although, certainly, people have tried...) - it requires instead an orientation within the theory to exposing how it has become possible to learn what the theory tells we are now able to know. The shift required is a conceptual, rather than a stylistic, one. My post, though, left this ambiguous, and you are right to pick up on the issue. I don't think anyone will express this adequately in all, or even most, writing - I just feel it's particularly important to try to do this, when we are explicitly engaged in theorising alternatives to subject-object dualism. And yes: "there must be some means to connect the historicisation of knowledge with more traditional knowledge claims" - absolutely. And we need to work on unfolding those particulars. My suspicion is that this will be a bit easier if we begin by analysing the historical embeddedness of our own insights... But it's early days for all of this, so my suspicion probably isn't worth much more, at this stage, than it has cost to share with you... ;-P Many thanks for your comments - it's been immensely helpful to find a few folks scattered around the net who enjoy discussing these issues... Unlike Sinthome, I find sometimes that the responses of others make me feel more ephemeral… ;-P Not, however, in the case of your reply… :-)

I just happened to catch your comment between meetings, so this will be a very brief response. I agree with the point you are trying to make about the elevation of style over content in some of the worst appropriations of “poststructuralist” theory – but this wasn’t actually the point I was trying to make in this particular post. (I was, though, worried that my meaning could be taken in precisely this way, so I appreciate your comment as an opportunity to address the distinction…)

What I’m trying to highlight is actually a more fundamental issue – not specific to poststructuralist theory, but to any approach that tries to assert a dynamic identity of subjecitivity and objectivity, but that falls into asserting this position in the form of a stance.

When I speak about the form of the argument in this post, I’m actually not talking about the written style (among other things, it would seem unfair to pick on someone’s style in a blog post – where the whole point is to expose ideas in draft) – I’m actually talking about something more like analytical style – about the underlying logic of the argument. By the same token, I don’t think the problem can be resolved purely by the adoption of any particular writing style (although, certainly, people have tried…) – it requires instead an orientation within the theory to exposing how it has become possible to learn what the theory tells we are now able to know. The shift required is a conceptual, rather than a stylistic, one. My post, though, left this ambiguous, and you are right to pick up on the issue.

I don’t think anyone will express this adequately in all, or even most, writing – I just feel it’s particularly important to try to do this, when we are explicitly engaged in theorising alternatives to subject-object dualism.

And yes: “there must be some means to connect the historicisation of knowledge with more traditional knowledge claims” – absolutely. And we need to work on unfolding those particulars. My suspicion is that this will be a bit easier if we begin by analysing the historical embeddedness of our own insights… But it’s early days for all of this, so my suspicion probably isn’t worth much more, at this stage, than it has cost to share with you… ;-P

Many thanks for your comments – it’s been immensely helpful to find a few folks scattered around the net who enjoy discussing these issues…

]]> By: Nick http://www.roughtheory.org/content/once-more-with-meaning/comment-page-1/#comment-843 Nick Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:15:38 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/once-more-with-meaning/#comment-843 Hi N. Pepperell, Taking Sinthome's recurrent claims that the replies of others on his blog lend him assurance of his existence, I'd just like to offer my own reply here to assure you that you aren't alone in your thinking. If I'm understanding you correctly, this disjunct between the content and the form of a self-reflexive stance are part of what I have grappled with on my own for a while too. As I see it (and I haven't given it any terribly deep thought here), much of the primary writing that goes under the (loose) term 'poststructuralism' is an attempt to conjoin form and content, and this is what has led to so much of their notorious difficulty. While I can certainly see the value and necessity of writing in a way that performs your content, I also think (and I'm sure Sinthome would agree, with his experiences in Deleuzian scholarship) that it can be used to cover over a lack of well-reasoned arguments. I don't think this is the case with the original sources (Deleuze, Derrida, Lacan, etc.), but too often I think secondary writers take the eccentric writing styles to be a license for anything ("viva la desire!"). I can't speak for Sinthome, but I suspect that this is a large part of why he may separate form and content like you suggest, as a reaction against these other writers. I think the best way of mitigating the tension between these writing styles is something along the lines of what you roughly sketch out - there must be some means to connect the historicization of knowledge with more traditional knowledge claims. As to the particulars, well, that's a good question! -Nick Hi N. Pepperell,
Taking Sinthome’s recurrent claims that the replies of others on his blog lend him assurance of his existence, I’d just like to offer my own reply here to assure you that you aren’t alone in your thinking. If I’m understanding you correctly, this disjunct between the content and the form of a self-reflexive stance are part of what I have grappled with on my own for a while too. As I see it (and I haven’t given it any terribly deep thought here), much of the primary writing that goes under the (loose) term ‘poststructuralism’ is an attempt to conjoin form and content, and this is what has led to so much of their notorious difficulty. While I can certainly see the value and necessity of writing in a way that performs your content, I also think (and I’m sure Sinthome would agree, with his experiences in Deleuzian scholarship) that it can be used to cover over a lack of well-reasoned arguments. I don’t think this is the case with the original sources (Deleuze, Derrida, Lacan, etc.), but too often I think secondary writers take the eccentric writing styles to be a license for anything (”viva la desire!”). I can’t speak for Sinthome, but I suspect that this is a large part of why he may separate form and content like you suggest, as a reaction against these other writers. I think the best way of mitigating the tension between these writing styles is something along the lines of what you roughly sketch out – there must be some means to connect the historicization of knowledge with more traditional knowledge claims. As to the particulars, well, that’s a good question!

-Nick

]]>